<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><br>"Noisebridge is one of the most excluding organizations I've ever been in. :("<br></div><div> <br>When you have time Al, pop in Asia for a bit, after coming back to Noisebridge you will feel like in paradise which is open to all :-)<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck</div><div><br><br></div><div>biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker</div><br><div><br></div><div>http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org</div><div><br><br></div><div>"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi<br></div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <br> <br> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida
Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:35 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart@gmail.com> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv8083843151"><div><div dir="ltr">The overzealousness is probably a feature (though I think a problematic one). The reason Noisebridge has such a tightly-shut gate for membership is because any single member can block consensus items, so you don't want to allow someone in who will overuse it.<div>

<br clear="none"></div><div>Then again, that means Noisebridge has a grueling application process that keeps people away (I know plenty of people who've been at the space for years but have never become members). Noisebridge is one of the most excluding organizations I've ever been in. :(</div>

<div>My understanding of the
proposal is to re-evaluate Associate Membership in February, so no
definition of what happens if we get rid of them has been provided.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I think having consensus on new members is pretty overzealous. Some
combination of the two processes might be better (4 week trial period,
written statement on the wiki, and 4 sponsors seems appropriate to me).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Cheers,<br clear="none">
Madelynn<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<blockquote style="border:0px none;" type="cite">
<div style="margin:30px 25px 10px 25px;"><div style="display:table;width:100%;border-top:1px solid #edeef0;padding-top:5px;"> <div style="display:table-cell;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:6px;"><img src="cid:1.1410246122@web121502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com" name="142df3b44eb62dd7_postbox-contact.jpg" height="25px" width="25px"></div>

<font color="#9FA2A5"><span style="padding-left:6px;">December 10, 2013
5:12 PM</span></font></div></div></div><div class="yiv8083843151im">
<div style="color:#888888;margin-left:24px;margin-right:24px;"><div dir="ltr">Just to clarify,
this would get rid of the concept of associate members? And would not
convert them to being members? Would they still (technically) be able to
come to Noisebridge on their own?<div><br clear="none"></div>

<div>Am I right in saying that basically the idea of having associate
members was to 1) make it easy to become an associate member since no
single person could block it (rather, you'd have to have a unanimous
vote to block someone) and 2) on the other side, associate members
couldn't unilaterally block consensus items?</div>

<div><br clear="none"></div><div>It did always feel like a hack to me. I'd rather
just have the regular members all become associate members since
blocking is such a nuclear option, causing people to circumvent the
consensus process entirely (which leads to drama).</div>